1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to computerized scheduling systems. More particularly, the present invention relates to managing work order scheduling according to priority levels that are assigned to work order requests.
2. Background of the Invention
Utility companies that provide services such as telecommunications capabilities, electric power, natural gas, or cable television, are generally organized into particular geographical regions for providing installation, build out, and repair services (“installations”). Engineers, designers, and other managers (“engineers”) are primarily responsible for designing and managing projects and work orders within respective geographical areas, or zones. The engineers create specifications for various project builds, and store them in the form of work orders to be completed. Construction crews and foremen, linemen, and other service agents (“construction agents”) are responsible for performing the installations required to complete the work orders to implement the engineers' designs. A significant problem that arises in conventional work order scheduling is the allocation of scarce resources (e.g., construction agents and equipment) to complete the work orders in a timely and efficient manner.
Work orders can be broken down into a set of tasks that must be completed to process the work order. Each of these tasks can be assigned a time required to complete the task. In this manner, the time required to complete a particular work order can be estimated by summing the time estimates for completing the series of tasks that must be performed to process the work order.
Engineers and construction agents generally participate in periodic scheduling meetings to schedule installations to complete new work orders and discuss the status of pending work orders. During these meetings, the engineers and construction agents determine how to allocate limited installation resources (e.g., construction agents and equipment) to complete new and pending work orders. The number of construction hours available to a particular construction team is a function of the number of construction agents in the team, and the length of their work weeks in hours. For example, if a team of construction agents in a particular area has 10 construction agents working a 40-hour week, that area has 400 construction hours per week that it can allocate. These construction hours are assigned to work order tasks during the scheduling meeting.
During the scheduling meetings, engineers negotiate with one another to determine when particular work orders will be processed. Engineers whose area (or zones) require immediate service are expected to negotiate with engineers with less urgent needs to maximize the effective allocation of the construction agent hours in the entire service region. Customer complaints, desires for new or expanded service and service upgrades are examples of the parameters engineers consider to determine the urgency of particular work orders. At these meetings, construction agents may also provide status updates to the engineers for pending work orders for which service has begun.
Engineers are evaluated on their ability to process work orders. Engineers who do not process work orders effectively or efficiently may be ineligible for bonuses and/or subject to reprimand. Accordingly, engineers have incentives to lobby intensively for the completion of their work orders, even if this means exaggerating the urgency of their work orders. That is, certain engineers may seek to schedule their work orders without regard to the consequences for other, more pressing work orders. As a result, construction agents are often assigned in an inefficient manner, and work orders having bona fide urgency can be delayed for work orders whose urgency has been exaggerated. Further scheduling is often a “personality contest” where engineers having a close personal or working relationship with the scheduling manager have their projects scheduled first despite inefficiencies that are likely to occur.
An additional problem with conventional scheduling of work orders is that the scheduling meetings are generally memorialized only in the individual notes of the participants. Consequently, any knowledge transferred during the meeting is only as good as the notes that are taken. These notes are often incomplete or inaccurate. Such incomplete notes or misunderstandings can also result in ineffective work order scheduling. Moreover, where resource allocation disagreements result in impasse, work order schedules do not result from the scheduling meeting. This is unacceptable because it may allow resources to become idle until such time as the impasse is resolved and a work order schedule is in place.
Another factor affecting the efficiency of work order processing is that engineers can communicate with one another or with construction agent managers outside of the scheduling meeting to make arrangements for completing work orders. Such conversations do not take into account the needs of other engineers. Moreover, such out-of-meeting dealing reduces the possibility of meaningful coordination that occurs during the scheduling meeting.
Another problem with conventional work order tracking systems is that engineers may not receive timely updates concerning the status of existing work orders to report to their customers or respond to customer queries. Consequently, engineers are not always able to respond to customer queries in a satisfactory manner.